Nepal ordered internet providers to pull the plug on the social media platforms, including on its popular mobile application, Viber, without giving any reason but shortly after arrest of a journalist for posting a critical message on the iPortal, an online news portal.
The broad constraints, covering dozens of services, have set off warnings from press freedom groups and digital rights advocates that the step will encourage nationwide censorship.
What triggered the blackout
The directive was issued by Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to the Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA) to ensure that no ISP offered access after these foreign platforms did not register with the country and name a local representation.
Officials had previously given a one-week deadline for compliance, in an indication that un-registered services might be enforced against.
Officials cast the mandate as a governance and accountability tool that reflects a broader regional movement, in which India and other countries are pushing global tech companies to keep local presence for taking down content or coordinating emergencies. In a public notice, the ministry said access would not be restored until companies registered.
Who is — and who isn’t — affected
The order encompasses 26 platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, WeChat, Messenger, YouTube, X, Reddit, Snapchat and Discord. The exceptions are a list of apps, including TikTok and Viber, that the government said had complied with the registration requirement — an exception that amplifies the policy enforcement’s logic rather than a blanket ban by category.
Connectivity stakes are high. According to NTA figures, internet penetration in Nepal is reportedly higher than 90%, and Statcounter estimates put Facebook at around 87% usage out of among the social media, X at around 6%, and YouTube at about 5%. So the dominant channels being blocked will disrupt core information and trade flows for millions of users and small businesses.
Freedom of expression and legal context
Media and civil society organizations sounded the alarm right away. The Committee to Protect Journalists said the restrictions were set to impede reporting and access to information, and the Federation of Nepali Journalists said the action directly undermines constitutional guarantees of press freedom and access to information.
The dispute plays out on a shifting legal landscape. Nepal’s Supreme Court held the government could require platform registration as a means to combat disinformation however it did not explicitly order nationwide blocks for non compliance, emphasising the executive must “act under laws and frameworks”. The digital rights organization Access Now said in a statement that wholesale blocking over administrative noncompliance follows playbooks from hugely censored environments and risks establishing a “Great Firewall”-style approach inconsistent with democratic norms.
Another draft bill, as yet unapproved, would give the government the authority to order removals and threaten fines or jail time for posts that it deemed harmful to national interests. The International Federation of Journalists has warned that it could have a “chilling effect” on legitimate speech, unless the definitions are pared back and oversight is increased.
Government position and party responses
Officials in charge of communications say companies were given plenty of notice and several reminders to register, including contacting Meta and other major operators. The ministry says the door is open: Access can resume when companies provide local details and identify responsible officers for policy and grievance management.
Meta, Google and Snap did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the blocks or their sign-up plans. Industry lawyers say that platforms generally want clarity on liability, data management and appeals processes before establishing a local base, particularly if takedown orders could be broad or carry vague definitions.
Regional context and economic ripple effect
Nepal’s move toward local registration reflects actions taken in several South and Southeast Asian countries that have stripped away the freedom of global platforms to operate under lax compliance rules. Governments say such measures make them more responsive to harmful content, but rights groups maintain that murky orders and weak oversight could allow over-blocking and the suppression of political speech.
Indescribable, the stakes are economic. Small business owners tourists, artists and journalists in Nepal rely on social platforms for exposure and customer service. Even temporary blocks can dampen ad spending, narrow reach for crisis communications and drive users into private channels that are more difficult to monitor and monetize.
What to watch next
Now that will be shortened to a sign-off about scope and duration of enforcement; transparency around blocking orders; and whether the government introduces clearer appeal pathways and due-process protections. Observers will also monitor whether major platforms go public or register, seek court relief, or negotiate a construct that limits liabilities to content categories that can be proven to cause harm.
For now, Nepal’s move is a litmus test for how far states can go in tying access to compliance with homegrown rules — and whether it’s possible for platforms, civil society and the courts to shape a model that protects users without tipping into systemic censorship.